What an overrated piece of shit. This book contains NOTHING that I haven't already figured out on myself by actually studying religion and having common sense. Why do edgy fedoras praise this book so much?
>>8007125
I don't think it's right putting God into a scientific hypothesis like that. It's not like pseudo scientific theories like Intelligent design though.
>>8007125
Because it validates their opinion.
I'm an atheist and I read a few "atheist" books thinking I may learn something, but most of them are there only to agree with you and making you feel smart because "those guys think like I do!"
I figure the same applies to most "God Exists" books.
Reading books about both biology and theology (not divulgation) is the best way to go.
>>8007125
>inb4 200 posts by angry teenagers trying to show how much smarter they are than dawkins
>>8007125
I also hear he doesn't cover the euthyphro dilemma yet has a chapter based on the roots of morality.
>>8007199
Strawman.
Stating that he knowledge of theology and religion is overhyped doesn't have much relation with his intelligence - his work in biology is definitely worth reading for anyone with interest in the field, but pretty much anything he writes on religion shows his lack of knowledge in the field - not surprisingly giving his lack of any formal training (both in history of religion and theology).
>>8007125
>Why do edgy fedoras praise this book so much
What alternatives do they have? There are like zero decent pro-atheist books. It kinda makes sense because no one actually cares about "theism" apart from his respective religion so anyone with the drive and intelligence to make a decent argument would probably shy away from broad attacks against theism in general
>>8007199
199 to go
>>8007255
Yeah, I understand that.
>>8007125
>Why do edgy fedoras praise this book so much?
When I read Notes from the Underground for the first time I instantly fell in love with it because it so perfectly reflected how I thought.
I think it is that kind of thing for The God Delusion and fedora kids.
>>8007158
Don't think it refers to atheists in general, but rather the edgy fedora people OP is talking about.
>>8007125
My sentiment is that an argument can't be made either for or against the existence of a conceptual "God"; because of this, I simply choose to believe in a higher power because I'm a (delusional) optimist.
>>8007399
"Edgy fedora people" tend to be Christian.
>>8007407
I think believing in the god concept and believing in Christianity are two separate things. I think what's wrong is the personification of "god". The whole thing about kabbalism and magic, etc makes more sense to me.
>>8007186
>I don't think it's right putting God into a scientific hypothesis like that.
This. God is, by definition, supernatural. Science, by definition, exists to explain natural phenomena. Using science to explain God shows you have no understanding of either.
>>8007407
That's because the concept of God has not been adequately defined because christfags keep moving the goalposts
>>8007399
>>8007422
T B H the edgiest people I know are the evangelicals and Catholics who live in the south but believe that they're persecuted. They're always posting articles about how hitting children is necessary and everyone else is a pussy for not just waling on their kids for every damn thing. Like they're having fights in the comments on Facebook about who got hit more and hits their kids more as a point of being real upstanding men of God. They do this for everything. It's all about who's the toughest, no nonsense authoritarian Christian. It's weird as shit.
>>8007601
That's weird as fuck. Why do you associate with these people?
>>8007623
Because I'm from Alabama and went to Christian school so they were kinda unavoidable.
>>8007125
>common sense
>>8007140
>Evidence
>>8007601
Christians are persecuted though, and near no one in any position of power speaks out against this.
From it being some of the only hate speech allowed in NA, to the Islamic rape of Christians in Africa and Asia.
These people are given no voice whereas if a Muslim gets slapped in Europe or NA, it will be on the news.
>>8007640
Of course Christians are persecuted in the third world where they're a minority.
In the US they're still a majority and if they're getting bullied it's because they're huge pussies. Seize power or don't, but blogging about it is pretty sad.
Nobody praises that book in this age, maybe 5 or 10 years ago, but fedora atheists don't exist anymore.
The new edgy thing to be is right wing and ironically/culturally christian
>>8007640
Every religion should be. They are fucking scary. I don't see any difference between Christianism or Islam, it's all the sane insane scary bullshit. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/teenager-killed-at-upstate-church.html
>>8007654
I don't know about persecution, but they certainly should be subject to open and legal mockery. People can post fedora memes all they like, but making fun of something can do a lot to reveal the little absurdities that make up the big one.
>>8007125
You actually went and read a meme book from >not-current year ? What's wrong with you?
>>8007653
>fedora atheists don't exist anymore.
they don't???
>>8007652
lol he thinks there is a Christian majority anywhere
>>8007821
>he's american
>>8007780
Everywhere except the Yukon and Vancouver Island.
>>8007826
I find it hard to believe people are still proud of being European at this point.
>>8007848
>gets mad about a personal remark because it's not a logical argument
>calls that person "Mr. Logic-and-reason"
I have a hard time believing you're an actual Christian and not just someone trying to make believers look bad.
>>8007530
read aquinas
>>8007833
your /int/ and /pol/ memes don't affect many people in the real world bud
>>8007915
>millions of criminal third-worlder young men don't affect many people in the real world
Hmmm
>>8007928
I like the Europe that American /pol/types have made up in their minds - a drop in the ocean of the European population is a tsunami to you
>>8007933
>let people in
>they cause practically all of your country's violent crime
>we must bring in more at once!
It's not about purity of the white race or any of that stuff.
>>8007848
>They're not TRULY religious!
>>8008078
Christianity requires faith before action.
Those people are culturally Christian.
>>8008211
>everyone's faking it but me
>>8007653
>The new edgy thing to be is right wing and ironically/culturally christian
Where? Planet 4chan?
You are culturally Christian anyways, barring only the most strict conditions
>>8007249
>strawman
>Unironicallly using memes
>>8007249
There's no actual knowledge to be had in the "fields" of theology and religion. That's the whole fucking point.
>>8008254
From what you're trying to say I'm getting
>Christianity is wrong because there is no knowledge to be gained from it
>There is no knowledge to be gained from Christianity because it is wrong
>>8007525
Except that God, if real, would be the most natural thing in the world, since all nature originates from God and so there is nothing "supernatural" about him, and by seeking to explain natural phenomena, you are seeking to explain God, who is nature itself.
>>8008268
Go back to /b/, moron.
>>8008265
God is independent of His creation. He is non-contingent.
Trying to understand the essence of God through nature alone is like trying to understand the mind of an artist through nothing other than one of his paintings. You could try to make a connection and take away some real, valuable insights, but at the end of the day the painting isn't nearly enough to understand the full psyche of its artist.
>>8007848
>No TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
>>8008274
That is a point worth noting, yes. But I never actually claimed that by explaining natural phenomena, you would be able to fully explain God. That is clearly not how it works. Just, through science, you are invariably dealing with an aspect of God, and treating them separately would mean never grasping the significance of either. Which would be the opposite of the previous comment.
>>8007912
can you give me a tl;dr? I actually don't care enough about theology to be bothered reading it.
be mad about that if you like.
>>8007640
>Christians persecuted
Bitch please. I bet you think its persecution when somebody wishes you happy holidays or gets an abortion.
>>8007653
>the new edgy thing is to be right wing and ironically Christian
>ironically
No. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them ironic.
>>8008254
You could make that excuse for philosophy but I am sure you would defend that.
Any good "atheist" books?
To be honest polemics are probably as trustworthy as documentaries. I avoid Christian ones too, like 'The Last Superstition.'
>>8008355
Yeah popular nonfiction for either side of this debate is going to be shit. You're either going to have to go to philosophy or fiction if you want to read something worthwhile about atheism.
>>8007125
I'm surprised there are so many christcucks on /lit/. Doesn't posting here imply you can read?
>>8007653
This. I'm tired as hell of all these edgy retards who think christianity is some hardcore rebellion. You're not clever, you're just retarded.
Annnnnnddd another one
>really getting sick of these threads
>>8007125
I think it's meant for religious people to read. Anyone who hasn't had a hemispherectomy should have no problem figuring out everything in that book on their own. Fedoras love it because despite worshipping logic and reasoning, they actually suck at it, so they need a source of arguments to parrot in case they get in to a discussion. It's not that the book is wrong, it's just pointless. It's as if someone made the color beige into a book.
>>8008750
He's not an atheist. He's a Roman Catholic obscurantist, and the book is trash.
>>8008767
oh is he a le revolutionary Christian?
>>8008755
>Cheers anon. I'll check it out.
I wouldn't. It's not an atheist book, as you requested. It's an anti-atheist book written by a staunch Catholic.
>>8008355
A is for Atheist
It can be very dry, and at places feels like it's written for children, but it's a wonderful book because the author is a philosophy professor who clearly and in great detail lays out various arguments for not having faith in a deity with a minimum of fedora-tipping ( though a little fedora action is inevitable since the book is explicitly anti-theistic).
>>8008265
First, this
>>8007525
Everything is science. There isn't exceptions. Because what science means, as simply as possible, is logic. Thought with reason.
You can't make up something that doesn't accord to logic. And of course, everyone believes through faith and everyone haves superstition. But when you're letting something govern your life, like God, you better have a really solid, factual reason to. Or else you're just guessing and hoping.
>>8007192
>Because it validates their opinion.
Pretty much this, it's more aimed on people who grew up surrounded by religious brainwashing and need some other powerful figure to support their views.
>>8007255
Also this. Most atheists don't give enough fucks to bother. A book against monotheistic ideas is the same as book about why eating out of the toilet is a bad idea.
>>8007530
>let's conceptualize, for a moment, a limitless creation, that embodies an infinite creator
>naturally with the descriptions we have given, the spirit of that creator has to be within everything and everyone, having the essence of being indivisible and 'ONE'
>to try to speak about 'God', 'The Creator', 'Grand Architect', however you like to put it, would imply a point of distinction from you and it, thus misrepresenting the notion of God altogether
>leading us to the conclusion that anyone who tries to speak from a point of authority about God is, invariably, a fool
Seriously, I find this an easy line of logic to follow. If you wish to criticize it, please do, but know that speaking on the matter of 'God' is perhaps the most useless gesture of all.
God is a waste of time.
>being a Christcuck
>ever
it's for women and low testosterone betas who need someone to tell them what to do
>>8010599
Christianity is super manly, read Augustine.
>>8010013
This.
>>8010605
no, it's inherently effeminate, it is world-rejecting rather than worldly, it champions the weak and the meek over the strong, and Christcucks are encouraged by Paul to value the far over the near (take care of nignogs in Africa before your own family and community)
most of all it's just an offshoot of judaism, so if you're a white Christian you pretty much deserve the soft genocide that is happening to you in the west right now for adopting the religion of a culture that isn't even yours
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008683.html
>>8009974
>My special snowflake definition of religiosity means that 99% of religious people aren't REALLY faithful!
>I-I'll just k-keep talking about theology as if it's an actual discipline and not esoteric nonsense! That'll show them!
>>8010620
the fall of European Christendom is responsible for the West's death. It is not Christianity's fault that the clergy and culture of the Church are tarnished by the zeitgeist of secularism.
>>8010631
>the fall of European Christendom is responsible for the West's death
hmmm where have I heard this objectively wrong meme before
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/was-christianity-responsible.html?m=1
>>8010627
>special snowflake
>nonsense
You keep telling yourself that, dear.
>>8010664
only after you kindly fuck off back to rebbit
>>8010631
No, the *rise* of Christianity was responsible for the West's death.
>>8010679
Your reactionary ideology against today's zeitgeist is just as meaningless as the paradigm you reject. You've attached yourself to a superficial narrative just to convince yourself that your existence is valuable. I'm telling you to go back to /pol/ because I don't care to read your ideas, and because you'll be much happier deluding yourself into thinking there is some significance to your ideas and the ideas of the age with a bunch of other optimistic crusaders.
>>8007125
Coz he's a huge cunt.
>>8010654
Keep believing in baseless superstition and eating magical bread every weekend, sugartits
>>8010732
>baseless
Don't project your ideology
>superstition
Everything you hold dear is a superstition.
>>8010732
>baseless
Stay in your comfortable bourgeois bubble where the supernatural never intrudes, if you really want. Just don't lecture those of us who venture outside it.
>>8010715
>all this projected nonsense and signaling
with your shitpisting ability it sounds like you're the one who belongs on /pol/
>>8010760
You're a delusional faggot.
>>8010760
Hint: you are not "venturing outside" the natural world. No one can.
>>8010752
>Everything you hold dear is a superstition.
No, asshat. Superstition requires belief in the intervention of supernatural entities. The results of rational inquiry are not "superstitious".
>>8010819
I suppose in a certain sense you're right, religion and the things it does are part of the natural world. Miracles, apparitions, healings, and transfigurations are all to a certain degree natural, since God created them all.
>>8010836
There are no "gods" or "miracles", moron. Open up a science textbook some time.
>>8010836
God doesn't exist.
>>8010867
You are truly too stupid to breathe.
>>8010873
>IF YOU DENY MY IDEOLOGY YOUR LE STUPID XDDDDD LOOK HOW LE RATIONAL AND LOGICAL I AM INSULTING PEOPLE IN A CONDESCENDING TONE I AM SO DAMN OBJECTIVE AND LE SMART
>>8007125
Although yes, the content in the book "The God Delusion" is common sense now, it wasn't when it was published in 2006, that was a long time ago.
Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are all among the most popular of critics of religion, sure, it is probably easiest to state their work is the most overrated of religious criticism given the popularity compared to more obscure critics perhaps.
>>8010879
You are posting on a computer that works according to "natural"/"empirical" principles, dumbass. Hint: everything does.
>>8010867
>Empiricism cannot confirm empiricism, so my personal jewish god did it
religious people are just low iq narcissists infected by a mind meme, nothing more
>>8010867
>empiricism cannot confirm empiricism
Correct. For the same reasons, a religious viewpoint cannot confirm itelf, and so is always a matter of faith. Now, you may be tempted to remind me that this also makes empiricism a matter of faith, and you would be correct, but if you look at the applications and consistency of one versus the other, it becomes apparent which is more worthy of serious study and use.
>>8010909
>I'm so important the universe cannot possibly be indifferent to me! there is a noumenous deity who is personally concerned with my existence and welfare!
just admit you're a narcissist who adopted an unoriginal, ancient, occulted meme and be done with it, this is getting boring
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VP9gakH.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>Be God
>I AM
>decide to play a game
>there is nothing outside of god, so there is nobody to play this game with except myself
>play hide and seek with myself
>get really into the game by forgetting that I am god
>have all sorts of adventures, play all the roles, the mothers, fathers, Heros the Villains and the victims
>pretend to be trees and inanimate objects, animals and nature, always hiding from myself in perfect disguise
>be really really good at hiding, hide as nature, hide as scientists pretending to look for myself, hide as scientists saying that I don't exist, hide as a scientist who debates with myself hiding as a priest who also claims he found me (but that he is not me)
>In their dreams the characters can sense something of what they are, but they do not know for sure
>Give them little clues in their lives, becoming more and more often, making there world twist and turn into strangely familiar patterns
>you have been here before
>you have read these words a thousand times before, played this game an infinite number of times
>you have forgotten that you are God
>wake up and remember
>THAT ART THOU
>>8010920
>faith is bad
> but if you look at the applications and consistency of one versus the other, it becomes apparent which is more worthy of serious study and use.
More claims of empiricism confirming empiricism, I see.
Stop talking to me, I don't deal with children.
>>8010926
Shitposting sure is le logical-reason, Anon.
>>8010927
>scenario dreamt up by an autistic child
i liked this idea better when it was the series finale of st. elsewhere
>>8010939
who are you really trying to convince anon? you don't seem very secure in your faith
>>8010927
Good idea for a short story, but nonsense as philosophy.
>>8010939
Return to /b/, troglodyte.
>>8007125
it's a obscenely visceral book. May as well be a religious text.
>They're making our kids do this a-and they c-can't
>>8010941
autism was dreamed up quite recently, that story is basically ancient Hinduism
and it continues to dream up new things
>>8010939
>faith is bad
Never said that though. Learn to read, big guy.
>>8010948
he's basically described scientology
>>8010715
the guy you replied to wasn't me, the Christian you wanted to insult. I can understand why you say those words, but I have to say they don't apply to me. I'm tired of people giving messianic lectures like this on 4chan. Everyone wants to think they have some great insight that they're taking down to the plebs, I've been guilty of this myself.
>>8011033
Yes you did, you just don't realize you did because you're taking on a troll personality or have the mental faculties of a toddler.
>>8011129
>guy who unironically believes a sky leprechaun will give him all the ice cream after he dies telling anyone else they have the mental faculties of a toddler
Classic.
I'm happy to say it: Faith is bad. It's the opposite of critical thinking.
>>8011144
Good, because the Church does too. Your definition of faith, that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Fideism_rejected_by_the_Catholic_Church
Faith is trust. It's relenting to a higher authority or to a trustworthy figure on something you don't know, or placing your fate in their hands because you trust they will do what is best.
You have faith, when you board a plane, that you will make it safely to your destination. You can't know for sure, but you can assume that because of all the safety measures in place and the statistics that show that flying is extraordinarily safe, that you can place your trust in this machine and the men flying it to get you safely to the ground.
To have faith in God isn't thinking that he exists without any good reason. It's putting your confidence in the only being that really deserves it.
>>8011155
stop
>>8010664
Kek. /pol/ is a Christian board.
>>8011161
>stop
Why? I'm right.
Shitposters will be met with shitposting; they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
>>8011161
>You have faith, when you board a plane, that you will make it safely to your destination.
No, I have no such faith. I make an (unconscious) rational calculation that the expected value of boarding the plane is higher than not doing so. If the plane is small and dodgy enough, I may indeed decide against it. No 'faith in a higher power' required.
>>8011183
Why would I care what they think of me? If they want this then they may have it tenfold.
>>8011161
Faith or not faith isn't really the issue. The issue is that you think you need to put your confidence in a being and won't accept any other option, like having faith that there's no such being to worry about/trust in. It's not like we're talking about people choosing to have faith the Jupiter will get his way over Mars.
>>8007525
Can I ask: If god is a supernatural phenomenon, does he not have at least some naturally manifesting effects? It would seem that the two realms have to interact in some way or there would simply be no prophets, souls, revelations, miracles, etc. to speak of.
If the supernatural is so impenetrable, then how can we say anything meaningful about it, let alone bundle up a concept like God and project it into that realm?
>>8011161
>when you board a plane it's faith instead of just considering the chances of the plane going down vs not going down
>this somehow is applicable to believing in an ancient Jewish sky meme
This is what retards actually believe when they spend all their time reading Aquinas and Augustine's mental gymnastics.
>>8011155
>HAHA MEMES
God is the biggest meme of all anon, and you fell for it. Can't really blame you because it's an extremely adaptive one.
>>8011184
There wasn't any faith in a higher power involved in that example.
The etymology of faith might help.
Middle English: from Old French feid, from Latin fides.
Fides: trust, reliability, good faith, confidence
You rightly reproach those bad ideas. The problem is, those bad ideas aren't emblematic of orthodox Christianity.
>>8011189
You represent the body of Christ, anon.
>>8011196
I'm confused by what you mean, anon. If I came to the conclusion that God existed, and that Christianity was right, what rational reason would there be for me to not place all my trust in God?
>>8011197
Generally, everything natural is a result of God. There is no kind of, unintentional presence that God has in the natural world, like some kind of energy or vibration or whatever. Everything that exists is contigent upon His will. When it comes to the Christian perspective, I don't think there is an instrinsic difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' except that we have the universe and its laws and those things that are above them.
>>8011206
I'm not drawing a comparison between the two outside of the definition. I'm recontextualising the word faith, making its meaning within Christianity more apparent. It's not an argument for God or anything.
>>8011210
>I'm confused by what you mean, anon. If I came to the conclusion that God existed, and that Christianity was right, what rational reason would there be for me to not place all my trust in God?
So you've done that? You've decided that not only is there a God, but there's only one, and it has revealed itself only to some wandering semites who then kept it under wraps for a few thousand years until the deity manifested itself as one of them and lived about 33 years without breaking any of its own rules and then experienced a painful death in order to sacrifice itself to itself, and done so with a great deal of caution? I think you're jumping ahead a bit.
What I mean about not accepting other options is that the axioms one must work with to rationally believe in a god are from the get-go unnecessary complications thrown in out of wishful thinking, such as "there must be something greater" or "some mind must have built this." If you start with different axioms that don't lean so heavily on your overgrown capacity for pattern recognition and projection, you get a different result.
>>8011244
I love how you exaggerate things yet still claim to be 'reasonable'
How about you stop trolling already?
>axioms
>rationality
Stop projecting your worthless ideology onto everything.
>>8011256
Yeah, having reasons for things you do is absurd. It's much better to have a spirit beam messages into your brain and then yell at people who claim to have received different messages.
>>8011210
>Generally, everything natural is a result of God. There is no kind of, unintentional presence that God has in the natural world, like some kind of energy or vibration or whatever. Everything that exists is contigent upon His will. When it comes to the Christian perspective, I don't think there is an instrinsic difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' except that we have the universe and its laws and those things that are above them.
Thank you for responding. In this case, studying God would not be outside the purview of science? Perhaps just, at the moment, beyond the ability to be analyzed?
>>8011282
More exaggeration from mr logic and raisin.
Why are reasons good?
>>8011244
You know, I was reflecting on this and I wonder how far bemused incredulousness gets us. Like, there is nothing inherently wrong with your line of questioning on why God would act the way He did, but I thought about the way religious fundamentalists might say "you really believe there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was an explosion and the universe was created, and then billions of years later some chemicals randomly arranged into DNA and made people?"
I just wonder what degree of accepting mystery in life and its 'hows' is appropriate.
I don't think there can be more than one god unless you identify the gods with naturally occuring elements, passions, nations or whatever. There can't really be "two" of God, separated in substance.
God's methods of revealing Himself appeared to be quite effective, despite their humble origins. I think the foundation of a firm Jewish ethno-religious nation probably helped a great deal in establishing the monotheistic philosophy in the centre of the Middle East. Compound that with the large, intercontinental scale and exchange of ideas in the Roman Empire and you have the perfect setting for the seat of a universal Church. 2,000 years later, that Church persists, with over a billion members.
>>8011291
You could only study God through his effects, I think. So like, in the way philosophical inquiry would look at the state of the world and come up with ideas about the kind of God that created it, perhaps the scientific approach could analyse the universe and make hypotheses about the nature of its creator.
>>8011295
When people ask you why you're doing whatever it is you do with your time, do you reply, "because fuck you, that's why"?
>>8011295
>But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
1 Peter 3:15
>>8011295
Take your schizophrenic ramblings and claims of divinity elsewhere.
>>8011303
Which is essentially how all phenomena is analyzed anyways, it's just how many degrees of separation you have between your mind and your object of study.
>>8011303
The thing is, to be an atheist doesn't mean I have to believe in any particular origin of the universe or life. "I don't know," is a good enough answer when it's the case. It seems the height of arrogance to feel that something is very wrong if I don't know where life, the universe and everything came from.
>what degree of accepting mystery is appropriate
The minimum. This principle seems to work well when learning about all other areas of knowledge. If something is mysterious, you put a pin in it and keep working around that until a bigger picture reveals itself. In no event do you make grand claims about why that thing is a mystery. So far those have all fallen flat.
>I don't think there can be more than one god unless you identify the gods with naturally occuring elements, passions, nations or whatever. There can't really be "two" of God, separated in substance.
Why not? It seems that any acceptance of a god involves enough mystery that if someone at the outset had just said, "oh and there are two of them," it wouldn't have changed things very much.
>God's methods of revealing Himself appeared to be quite effective, despite their humble origins. I think the foundation of a firm Jewish ethno-religious nation probably helped a great deal in establishing the monotheistic philosophy in the centre of the Middle East. Compound that with the large, intercontinental scale and exchange of ideas in the Roman Empire and you have the perfect setting for the seat of a universal Church. 2,000 years later, that Church persists, with over a billion members.
That's intensely eurocentric (and I hate how that word gets abused). Huge empires have risen and fallen throughout history with scores of different faiths at their helms. Judaism is still around and influential, with its own nation. Islam is still here and is growing faster than Christianity, but I would hate to think that its growth means it's the one true path.
>>8011329
In the same way, being a Christian isn't a claim to having all the answers. It's a testimony that we believe in knowledge revealed to us by God. I understand the arrogance claim, but I don't think it really correlates to any meaningful reality, nor do I think it adds anything to the discussion. Christians believe they have been granted explanations for some things, and that understanding their purpose and function is vital to living life in an ethical and productive manner.
>The minimum. This principle seems to work well when learning about all other areas of knowledge. If something is mysterious, you put a pin in it and keep working around that until a bigger picture reveals itself. In no event do you make grand claims about why that thing is a mystery. So far those have all fallen flat.
>Why not? It seems that any acceptance of a god involves enough mystery that if someone at the outset had just said, "oh and there are two of them," it wouldn't have changed things very much.
Saying there is a God, let alone several, isn't meaningful unless you provide a defintion for what a God is.
The Trinity in Christianity refers to the three distinct persons in one God. They all share the same substance, the same properties, and will, and knowledge, and so on. Let's say you see an indistinct object in the dark coming toward you. If you were to ask "what" it is, and were informed it were a human being, you would know then understand that it has the properties of a human being - certain form and shape, human DNA, set of possible behavioral patterns, so on. Then you would say ask "who" it is, and it would provide you with an identity, which would help you understand their personality and their relation to other humans.
In the same way, if you were to ask what the creator of the universe is, it would be God. If you were to ask "who" it would be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>That's intensely eurocentric (and I hate how that word gets abused). Huge empires have risen and fallen throughout history with scores of different faiths at their helms. Judaism is still around and influential, with its own nation. Islam is still here and is growing faster than Christianity, but I would hate to think that its growth means it's the one true path.
Christianity has been primarily Eurocentric until it was spread through colonisation. Now it's growing in Africa, Asia and South America, while declining in Europe and ethnic European colonies. Either way, the organisation, moral structure and mission of the Church remain the same.
>>8011336
What are you trying to achieve, anon
>>8011375
> I understand the arrogance claim, but I don't think it really correlates to any meaningful reality, nor do I think it adds anything to the discussion
In discussions with believers, including pastors, priests and scholars, the question keeps coming up, "so you just think all this came from nothing?' People find that distressing, and whether they are nice people or not, that is still a deeply self-centered way to think of things, as is believing that they are so important that God had no choice but to let them in on secrets so they could be productive down here on earth. This brings me back to the matter of where one starts when one thinks about big questions. If you start with the assumption that your life and what you see are important in an objective sense to something out there that can make objective claims, then you need to slow down and ask why you think that must be the case. When I left the church, the key to my change of heart was rethinking everything through a lens of smallness, where what I see and do is that and nothing else.
Not even sure what you're at there in the middle. I didn't mention the trinity at all, only that if there were two distinct minds working in union to do the job of the monotheistic God, you would not be able to tell the difference.
>Christianity has been primarily Eurocentric until it was spread through colonisation. Now it's growing in Africa, Asia and South America, while declining in Europe and ethnic European colonies. Either way, the organisation, moral structure and mission of the Church remain the same.
I didn't say Christianity is dead. I just said its cultural influence has no special properties not filled in other places by other faiths.
>>8011329
^ This guy gets it. Well expressed.
>>8007125
Most of its praisers (Meaning the ones who actually fall into the sterotype) are very uneductaed people themselves in matters of Religion. This Causes a big impression on their principles based in resenmment and closed vistas.
>>8010752
>Everything you hold dear is a superstition.
Your mom isn't a superstition
>>8010760
Stop doing so much acid it's bad for you
>>8010836
>Miracles, apparitions, healings, and transfigurations are all to a certain degree natural, since God created them all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
>>8007125
Pic related lays down better cases with less butthurt rage and more empathy. Objectively superior book on why and how people are atheists, for all audiences.
>>8011417
Yeah it's pretty shit. Incidentally, Dawkins is also a subpar writer when it comes to many aspects of evolutionary biology, and pretty much gets BTFO on everything by a pair of marxist statisticians from Harvard.
>>8011417
I'm sure they are "very uneductaed" in matters of Astrology and Spoon-bending, as well.
>>8011401
>"so you just think all this came from nothing?"
I think it's more to do with the implausibility of the break in causality than with any drive of the ego. We look for explanation, sure, but I don't think the driving force of the religious is necessarily a fear of being insignificant.
On the contrary, I've found humility and a greater appreciation of one's "littleness" in the greater scheme of the universe to be an attractive part of Catholicism for me. On the contrary, it seems like a large amount of people to react to the death of God by retreating into themselves, and worshiping the self. Certainly was that way for myself.
>>8011429
To be honest I found Dawkin's work on the God Delusion confusing to its structure, mostly because it seems he's trying to weave a Historiographic argument. My confusion comes from the naivete with which is presented, Dawkin's understanding on history seems shallow. However, it also seems that this style is deliberated, to which I cannot conclude if Dawkings really wanted a serious study and argument or a work based in opinion and sensationalism.
>>8011440
if you were to write a polemic refuting those things the least you could do is research with integrity
>>8011440
Well, precisely based on your answer you seem to have a very narrow understanding on theology.
>>8011445
So a God of the gaps who can only grow smaller as the gaps are filled in. Admitting you simply do not know is okay, and is in fact superior to latching on to things that seem to be explanations when they are no more plausible than scores of other explanations.
>On the contrary, it seems like a large amount of people to react to the death of God by retreating into themselves, and worshiping the self. Certainly was that way for myself.
How you live without God is your own problem and doesn't reflect on whether he is there or is what you think he is. As for myself, I think there are many things in the world more interesting than myself that are worth interacting with.
>>8011452
Studying theology is like studying the theory of unicorns, or the theory of square circles.
>>8011458
tips fedora
>>8011454
Nothing in my post warrants the God of the gaps meme. I merely said that the reason those people say those words probably isn't ego-driven.
>How you live without God is your own problem and doesn't reflect on whether he is there or is what you think he is. As for myself, I think there are many things in the world more interesting than myself that are worth interacting with.
I didn't say it does, but we were discussing the apparent "arrogance" of those that find themselves believing Christianity. Turning that around on me like that is p u r e s o p h i s t r y
>>8011461
Nice comeback. This is the level of discourse one might expect from the superstitiously minded.
>>8011461
the hat man maymay is the final death rattle of the desperate christcuck
>>8011463
Wait, this has all been tone-policing? How sad.
If it's just sophistry then tear it down. I'm listening.
>>8011471
What do you mean? I'm just disappointed that, while we were discussing how a person's theological opinions reflect on their arrogance or lack thereof, you used my explanation of what I thought to be more accurate representations of the thought processes of people you disagreed with - and went on from there to condescend to me by saying "admitting you simply do not know is okay."
>>8011479
Yeah, you're upset that I sounded condescending. That's my tone, not my argument, which you are policing rather than addressing my argument.
Accepting one's own ignorance where appropriate is extremely important, and the "explanation of what I thought to be more accurate representations of the thought processes of people you disagreed with" included in itself reason to suggest that it would be better to accept ignorance than to think that way.
>>8011468
>>8011465
Just to make it clear, I did not answer with the meme. It was another Anon, but since you have made answers of the same quallity I do not believe I should answer you seriously aswell. And neither to the person who spouted the meme as a handy tool in desperation should receive a decent answer. In other words I believe that kind of discussion is simil to two persons shouting incoherences at each other, while we have another example of a good and sane discussion between two opposite positions in this very thread.
>>8011440
>these things are bad because i don't like them
>>8011521
Your trolling style has grown tiresome and easily recognizable. Time to switch it up.
>>8008265
>all nature originates from God
? ? ? ? ? ?
>>8011607
Yeah, theists talking as if the problem is anything other than "why a God?" can be pretty confusing, but they just can't stop.
>>8011495
The tone is just the cherry in top of your facetious interpretation of my post.
>>8011620
Aquinas solved this problem bro lol
>>8011647
Honest question here:
Has anyone refuted the Quinque Viae? And I don't mean some edgy atheist blog, I mean a legitimate refutation
>>8011925
Aquinas' mental gymnastics are the Christfag equivalent of an edgy atheist shitposting on his blog. There is no need for a serious refutation of "goddidit" because it's not a serious proposition.
>>8011925
Quinque Viae is self-refuting garbage.
I am an atheist, but the New Atheist scientism is its own brand of religion in the Nishitani sense: religion as structure or meaning imposed on the yawning abyss of nihilism.
Religion has always served an organizational role. It has always been about structure. Not all religions were devised to give comfort to the dying, to promise an afterlife, or to define a personification for natural events. But all religions (from their most primitive to their most naturalized) seem to satisfy one human need: providing a purpose and meaning to an apparently purposeless and meaningless universe. Scientism and the church of progress answer the same needs, and they have similarly irrational bases. Scientism just focuses on exploiting the natural world for human desires. This makes it a very productive belief system, but more dissatisfying as well, because it puts the cart before the horse.
>>8008327
So where does your strong, yet uninformed opinion come from?
>>8007601
Due to the nature of American jurisprudence a single case has great power, meaning the few cases of persecution for religious beliefs (the cake guy, general hate speech cases) are a strong basis for future institutional persecution.
>>8008355
Feser was pretty great.
>>8012007
>Due to the nature of American jurisprudence a single case has great power, meaning the few cases of persecution for religious beliefs (the cake guy, general hate speech cases) are a strong basis for future institutional persecution.
Not really. Courts are always free to call previous judgments into question. Happens all the time. Rulings that people now treat as sacred were once in direct contradiction of previous supreme court rulings.
Hate speech is an example of this. It's not a real thing in the US even though there was a big scare about it becoming one a few years ago because of some local hate crime legislation standing for too long.
>>8011967
Not following you here. Atheists are not committed to any kind of "church of progress". Between Archimedes and Descartes there was basically 1800 years of intellectual darkness. For that matter, the whole of humanity could be wiped out tomorrow via nuclear war - ending any so-called "progress" permanently. None of that makes theism any more plausible.
>>8012007
>if you don't read pages upon pages of christian apologetics aka religious people trying to use logic and reason to explain a faith-based belief aka shitposting then you're uninformed
ok
>>8012167
Your inability to use google and autistic fits when something like rationalwiki comes up isn't an argument.
>>8012039
Theology isn't apologetics, and yes, if you don't have sufficient knowledge of a subject, in this case philosophy and theology, you are severely uninformed on said subject and your opinion is worth shit.
It tries to scientifically debunk the existence of God. What did you expect?
>>8012226
I think you're missing the point. If one does not believe that there is a god to study, reading a bunch of papers on the nature of one group's conception of that God which all start with the presupposition of his existence isn't going to be terribly helpful in deciding if that God is for real or not.
>>8012244
>skipping all the religious texts from human history because lol they dumb
I'm sure there wasn't anything worth reading before Dawkins came along anyway.
>>8007125
Because most books looking to inform are targeted at people who require informing, if you are as adept on the subject as you claim then you would gain no more from this than a book that taught you how to wipe your ass, dickhead
Literally anyone with a brain, atheist or believer, knows what a pile of shit that book is OP.
>>8012248
Well, no, the source texts themselves are a different matter, and apologetics and evangelical texts may be interesting if you want to learn about where faith comes from, but reading about how many angels can dance on a pinhead or whether God hates fags or just feels mild disgust may not be very useful to anyone who doesn't believe such a god is here.
>>8007640
Literally everytime a white person in my country gets attacked by a muslim or eastern european its all over the press. I swear to god, it's like you people live in a hole.
>>8007983
>they cause practically all of your countries violent crime
/pol/ actually believes this. Come walk through a housing estate in England anon, you'll see that whites are perfectly capable of violent crime too.
>>8012267
I know welcome to western ideology, all Christianity is is the john green version of the koran
>>8012277
More of a Scandinavia thing. We all know Anglos are horrible.
>>8012244
Indeed, but pretending to be knowledgeable about it and dismissing giants of western philosophy such as Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz and Descartes and their core beliefs because you have an a priori position that they do mental gymnastics or whatever the buzzword is is incredibly ignorant and stupid.
Am I the only one who cringes so hard at anyone who actively refers to themselves as atheist?
>>8012286
Aquinas and Augustine are not relevant in philosophy any more, and Leibnitz Descartes are wrong about lots of shit. Watch the hero-worship.
>>8012288
Yes. I don't think it's a problem in itself.
What really triggers me are the fighters for human rights and spiritual but not religious leftist scum.
>>8012288
What would you have people who don't believe in God do? Just mumble and stare at the ground when the topic comes up?
>>8012282
Haha but I mean seriously, you shouldn't believe everything you hear on /pol/. Have you actually been to any of the Scandinavian countries? I'm Swede and all these memes about violent muslim young men makes me laugh. Sure there are a lot of immigrants in certain cities and we shouldn't take any more but all this talk about rape and criminality is so hilariously exaggerated.
>>8012303
>and we shouldn't take any more
So, are you going to take more or not? Odds on you will.
>>8012296
I would do what I and every other sane person I know does, answer that I don't have the answer and I honestly don't Care. Be a believer or a non-believer but I think there are more important questions to discuss other than religion.
In my experience the actual Christian believers just minds there own agenda but atheists are just loud obnoxious and really anxious the make their opinion heard. You know how a vegan always tells you they are a vegan? That's how I experience atheists.
>>8012291
They aren't popular, but there has been a revival of classical theist philosophy, now compared to 50 years ago you have far more people who are thomists for example.
And Aquinas in general has become more influential across more fields. You now have analytical thomism and he is quite important in legal philosophy through Ihering.
The not relevant in philosophy now is just a silly card to play.
>>8012315
Odds that we won't really. SD is already one of the biggest parties and when my generation gets to vote which is next election I can guarantee that the left will lose A LOT of voters, and I think those voters will go to either SD or whatever else party actively pursues the question of immigration.
But I really don't care for now.
>>8012321
You're not from the Bible Belt then.
>>8012324
Something's popularity says pretty much nothing about it other than that it appeals to a lot of people. Aquinas and Augustine are irrelevant in actual philosophy because they have been discussed and dismissed as historical relics who form an important part of history but don't pose any questions that are still interesting to people who don't possess a psychological need to be religious.
>>8012332
And that's the thing, they haven't been dismissed, no matter how much you may want them to be.
Has a large part of anglosphere almost forgotten their existence? Yes, since they are mostly into linguistics right now, but considering there is a larger number of contemporary thomists only a moron would insist they were universally dismissed.
>>8012338
In academic circles where these things are discussed seriously, yes, they're pretty much dismissed outside of exercises for undergrads.
I don't know why you think I would think it's interesting that Catholics still venerate those particular saints.
>>8012343
>In academic circles where these things are discussed seriously, yes, they're pretty much dismissed outside of exercises for undergrads.
Which is simply untrue. They are discussed as vaid philosophical systems. The claim that they aren't would require an absence of serious thomists who teach and write on the subject. And since there is a solid number, statements that it's there only for undergrads is something you want and not something that is.
>I don't know why you think I would think it's interesting that Catholics still venerate those particular saints.
Thomism isn't veneration of Thomas Aquinas.
It would also imply that all thomists are Catholic, which also isn't true.
>>8012353
Theological colleges are not real universities for serious scholars. Call me fedora all you like, but seminaries and other places you might dig up a Thomist scholar are refuges for those who want to make a living off the superstitious. Show up to seminar at an Ivy League philosophy department and explain that you've got five proofs of God and see what happens.
>>8012361
>Theological colleges are not real universities for serious scholars.
They are, but I wasn't referring to any.
>Call me fedora all you like, but seminaries and other places you might dig up a Thomist scholar are refuges for those who want to make a living off the superstitious.
I don't think you are fedora, I think you are a genuine moron who doesn't read any actual philosophy.
Seminaries don't actually study much of Aquinas at all.
You also don't understand the term superstition, or you do and intentionally twist it to embrace a school of philosophy and a religion not based on superstition (because the supernatural and the superstitious mean different things).
>Show up to seminar at an Ivy League philosophy department and explain that you've got five proofs of God and see what happens.
I don't know, I never tried. I would like to assume a serious discussion that involves people who understand the five ways and know that the whole thing goes much deeper than the ways since they are an introduction to the whole thing.
I'll give you a piece of advice, seeing your knowledge of Aquinas is very poor (and I'll assume the rest of philosophy since your speech patttern is of a person who doesn't read at all). Newfag drawn by the name of the thread I assume?
>>8012321
>I would do what I and every other sane person I know does, answer that I don't have the answer
What you are describing is not "sane" -- it's cowardly. There is an answer to the question of whether there are gnomes, fairies, gods, unicorns, wizards, and other supernatural creatures - and it's a no.
>>8012369
Huh, you seem a little angry.
It's fine if you really want Aquinas to be right, but he's not and I have no reason to say he is. We're talking about a fellow who presented five arguments for God when two of them are literally the same thing. He's primitive, no matter how compelling he may sound if you already agreed with him when you read him.
>>8012324
Bullshit. "Thomism" or anything else from pre-1950 is not relevant to philosophy as practiced today.
>>8012338
>And that's the thing, they haven't been dismissed
Yes, they have.
>>8012369
>I don't think you are fedora, I think you are a genuine moron who doesn't read any actual philosophy.
It is you that have no clue what philosophers actually do. In contrast, your interlocutor's statements line up with the reality of philosophy as practiced. Mainstream philosophers are not studying anything with theological presuppositions -- whether from Aquinas or any other religious thinker of the past.
>>8012407
Philosophy exists outside mainstream America.
>>8012402
The 5 ways are the most basic thing in his philosophy, people who don't know much about it cling to it.
He's far more compelling in his legal philosophy for example which is where most of my fascination with him comes from.
You call him primitive, dozens of thinkers in various fields call him a profound genius.
Ihering said that he felt bad because almost every idea he had had appeared in Aquinas and that it was a massive mistake in the protestant world to abandon him.
>>8012411
As long as you have a lot of people who study him as a genius in multiple fields, he can't be said to have been dismissed.
>>8012420
>It is you that have no clue what philosophers actually do.
It's a very wide term in itself. They aren't all American analytical philosophers of language.
>Mainstream philosophers are not studying anything with theological presuppositions -- whether from Aquinas or any other religious thinker of the past.
Like Locke or Descartes or Kant or Aquinas or Leibniz?
Because I know plenty who do. And you could find a lot if you tried really. Again, philosophy exists outside the anglosphere.
>>8012451
T B H if his proofs of God don't stand then the rest of it is basically a novelty. And they don't.
>>8012451
>Because I know plenty who do
name some
real living ones
>>8012029
>Between Archimedes and Descartes there was basically 1800 years of intellectual darkness.
Confirmed troll.
>>8012029
>plausible
Very logical-reason, Anon.
>>8012244
LOL I AM SMARTER THAN ALL THESE PEOPLE XDDDDD I AM LE SUPREME GENIUS-MASTER OF LOGIC AND REASON
>>8012267
White person =/= Christian you dunce.
>>8012281
Christianity is an Eastern-spread-Western religion you dunce.
>>8012291
IT'S 2016 YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE
>>8012353
Don't argue with trolls.
>>8012361
Ivy League schools are biased jokes.
>scholars
See? Bourgeoisie manchild obsessed with his illusion of intellectualism.
>>8012420
>Mainstream philosophers
AKA Marxist and Empiricist pseudo-intellectuals.
>>8013535
Jesus says you should take your own life.
>>8007249
A major point he raises in The God Delusion is that theology is not a field of study and that scientists and philosophers are more qualified than theologians to raise and answer questions about religion, because in his view a "theologian" isn't anything.
>>8007653
>The new edgy thing to be is right wing and ironically/culturally christian
This is only a thing on /pol/ and maybe also /lit/ and /int/. There are no other places on the internet where this is a trend, let alone in the real world.
Please go outside a little more often.
>>8007654
Agreed. Religion assumes the abandoning of reason. Believing in a deity is irrational. Religious people are often really kind, or at least, they are in the country I live in (the Netherlands), but their religion itself is devoid of ratio.
>>8007833
I am very proud of being Dutch. I am not very proud of what the politicians in charge of my country are doing.
>>8008211
There are two things wrong with this:
1. It is a True Scotsman fallacy
But more importantly:
2. How do you know that all those people aren't incredibly pious, practicing Christians?
>>8008259
No, that's not what he is saying. He is saying that there 'is' no such field as theology. There is religious studies, there is philosophy, there is science, and theology is supposed to be somewhere in between those three - but in reality, the space that theology occupies is already completely covered by those three. Theology is a redundant field. This is also a central point in The God Delusion. God, it's like you guys haven't even read the book - yet here you are, discussing it.
>>8013600
>1. It is a True Scotsman fallacy
Why are fallacies wrong?
Why do you expect me to take you seriously when you don't take yourself seriously (by not playing by the rules of your ideology?)
>How do you know that all those people aren't incredibly pious, practicing Christians?
Some are, most aren't.
By the way, one can be non-practicing and be Christian. Again, it's an act of faith before action. The culturally Christian put practice before all else, yet the average secular things this postering makes them Christian.
>>8013569
there are atheist theologists tho
>>8008274
Flawed analogy. Surely God has a relation to His Creation (the Universe), otherwise it would be meaningless to make statements about him. (it doesn't matter whether those statements are religious, philosophical or scientific; in case you want to pull the "it is not possible to understand God" card). If there would be no relation between Him and this Universe, all statements about Him become meaningless and he could equally well not exist.
>>8013615
She's a scholar of religion. She doesn't claim to study the nature of God (theology), as that would be completely absurd for someone who does not think there is a god to study.
>>8013619
>Surely God has a relation to His Creation (the Universe), otherwise it would be meaningless to make statements about him.
Why do empiricists been blabbering away on topics they don't understand by forcing their own dogma into unrelated topics?
>>8013623
Explain how that's wrong then.
>>8013615
Those are not "theologians" in a philosophical sense. Those are "theologians" in a scholarly sense. They study religion, they don't introduce new religious views and arguments.
>>8013610
Fallacies are a flaw in reasoning, but they don't automatically invalidate the truth behind an argument. They just make the argument for that truth invalid, not the truth itself. This far I agree with you.
>Some are, most aren't
That's what my question was about: how do you know this so sure?
>>8013598
>Why? Because your ideology says so?
It is the most useful way to extract meaning out of reality. Everyone applies ratio in some parts of their life. Don't act as if you don't, otherwise you would be a vegetable rocking back and forth in a lunatic asylum. (Not an insult, just a reflection on what the life of an individual without ratio would look like)
>>8013622
>>8013629
>Francesca Stavrakopoulou, born 3 October 1975, is an Oxford University-trained theologian,[1][2] and current Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter and head of its Department of Theology and Religion
I suspect she knows more about theology than some navel gazers on /lit/
>>8012464
still waiting
>>8013623
Please don't attack the person, attack the argument: explain why this dogma is wrong.
>>8013652
>It is the most useful way to extract meaning out of reality
becuz your ideology sed so
>Everyone applies ratio in some parts of their life
This does not make it good or correct
>>8013658
Yeah, she probably can even read her own publications to see what it is she actually does instead of making assumptions based on a label applied to her in a Wikipedia article. Idiot.
>>8013656
So you're saying it's totally fine to say that God has no relationship to this world and the only way one can learn about him is through some mysterious transdimensional mind-meld. Okay.
>why is reasoning good
Because it appears to return results when applied to problems, and allows people to communicate with one another effectively.
>>8013656
Reasoning is indeed the most fundamental measure we use to structure our thoughts. Thus far I have not found a reasoning for why reason is good, without getting caught in a loop; I freely admit that. But it has proven the most useful way for me (emphasis on 'me') to understand this world. Without it, it seems as if society could as well not exist. Without ratio, life seems utterly meaningless.
>>8013658
Theologian has two definitions:
Someone who studies religion
And
Someone who produces new religious views and arguments
I was referring to the second definition, not the first. I'd rather even call the first a religious scholar, not a theologian. Let's not get caught up in the vagueness of language - Russell already warned us about this.
>>8013677
Because we're having a discussion? Not a foodfight.
>>8013677
>seculars are functionally illiterate on religion
There are loads of people who grew up earnestly religious and are now "seculars." This is awful bait.
>>8013677
>Seculars are functionally illiterate on religion.
yeah fuck off
>>8013682
>making assumptions based on a label applied to her in a Wikipedia article. Idiot.
exactly what assumptions need to be made? she's the head of a theology department at a university. she knows more about theology than you ever will. idiot yerself.
>>8013695
your two definitions are not mutually exclusive. if you read any of Dr Stavrakopoulu's work, or even watched the tv series she made a few years ago, you would know she is involved in both areas.
>people still responding to the sky-fairy worshipper's bait
>>8013752
Bait can make for interesting discussion sometimes
>>8013682
>So you're saying it's totally fine to say that God has no relationship to this world and the only way one can learn about him is through some mysterious transdimensional mind-meld. Okay.
IF IT ISN'T MUH IDEOLOGY IS MUST BE SOME CRAZY THING IM SO LOGICAL-REASON
>Because it appears to return results when applied to problems, and allows people to communicate with one another effectively.
Empiricism does not confirm empiricism.
>>8013684
>for me
Then why do you project your ideology onto other people?
>it seems as if society could as well not exist.
Society is evil.
>Without ratio, life seems utterly meaningless.
Seculars confirmed to worship their fallacy (reason cannot confirm reason. thus there is no reason to put absolute faith into reason, thus it is unreasonable).
And because it is fallacious, it is unreasonable, and so on. I keep explaining this but for whatever reason it gets ignored.
>>8013701
>reason is good because its 2016 you uncivilized pig!!!
>>8013724
Yes Anon, anything you don't like is bait.
Earnest belief is not knowledge, knowledge comes from the faith.
>>8013739
Fuck off Francesca
>>8013739
Claiming that she does every single thing that comes under the heading of theology because the word is in her title is pretty dumb when her whole publication history is readily available.
>>8013767
>empiricism does not confirm empiricism
Correct. In fact, no axiomatic system, theism included, can confirm itself, and so we must accept some slight bit of ignorance and use criteria other than hard proof to decide how to live. Theistic models of the universe offer up more mystery than answers, and so some people prefer to take the approach that yields answers. Others find that theism feels nice and so choose that route. That's pretty much all it boils down to.
>Earnest belief is not knowledge, knowledge comes from the faith.
Yes, knowledge of the universe appears to follow pretty readily from faith that rational inquiry will turn up answers. This is something that can actually be demonstrated by thousands of years of history.
>>8013819
>Yes, knowledge of the universe appears to follow pretty readily from faith that rational inquiry will turn up answers. This is something that can actually be demonstrated by thousands of years of history.
Empiricism does not confirm empiricism.
Holy shit, how many times do I have to explain this?
>>8012400
See, that's exactly what I mean. Yes both you and I both know gnomes don't exist but we have no right to tell someone else that they should change their beliefs. Which is what every atheist ever try to do in every sibgle conversation.
The sane thing would be to say that every person is entitled to their own opinion.
